Only if you've had your brain injected with the artificial retroviral biotech material.

This is just an application of an existing technology to primates. No big news.

The technique involves injecting the brain in the desired region with an artificial retrovirus-like agent. This contains a gene for an artificial surface protein that triggers the nerve to fire when exposed to a particular color of light, along with a promoter t

Biggest issue with the technique right now is selective targeting. To do it you need to know the promoter sequence for a gene of interest, and it has to be small enough to be packaged into the viral vector along with the channelrhodopsin (to activate neurons) or halorhodopsin (to inactivate neurons, responds to yellow rather than blue wavelengths). For many genes the promoters are either not well characterized or too big, which is why so much of the current work in optogenetics is being done in mice - we ha

I was thinking more of the funny science fiction novel "Shades of Grey" by Jasper Fforde where people get healed by being shown certain colors (and can even overdose on certain pleasure-inducing colors). Maybe not so far-fetched after all? It's quite amazing how many seemingly absurd elements of that story start to make sense after a while, I can't wait for part 2 and 3.

(note: I did not mean "fifty shades of grey" which is an entirely different book that appears to be more popular for some reason)

The other night I saw a video of a cat being shown a video. Electrodes in the cat's brain, were wired to a screen showing a slightly garbled version of that same video. So light from a video went in the cat's eyes, then electrodes in the cat's brain took the image and fed it to another video screen and the image was recognizable. I for one am impressed.

They call it television. It works very well by telling people what is cool and what isn't. Also in election years, the politicians tell the people what they want to hear by spending money, and naive voters pick their candidate on this. Big media does their part too by making the bought and paid for candidate sound smart and the opposition sound like a negative radical.

As another poster pointed out, we have known this for years concerning neurons.

The deal here, is that we need to introduce a benign photopigment gene (like jellyfish fluorescent protein) into the target's neurons, then produce a contact-free BCI that uses small solid-state laser diodes as the signalling pin grid array, coupled with a sensitive CCD that records the flash patterns of the activating neurons underneath.

Using different frequencies of light for signal and reception allows you to isolate signal da

Good, TFA never mentions how this could be used for nefarious purposes. I mean, with algae-based gene therapy on brain cells and fiber optic cables crammed into your head, what could possibly go wrong?

Good, TFA never mentions how this could be used for nefarious purposes. I mean, with algae-based gene therapy on brain cells and fiber optic cables crammed into your head, what could possibly go wrong?

If this technology were built up by the wrong people in the right way it could replace waterboarding.

This is a very promising technology. Minimally, it is already proving invaluable for neuroscience research. What it means is that using genetic engineering (e.g. viral introduction of engineered genes into the brain) you can activate or inhibit a specific class of neurons (more precisely: neurons in which a specific genetic promoter is active) in a small brain region (using a surgically implanted optical fiber), and you can do so on the time scale of normal neuronal firing.

I think clinical applications may emerge relatively soon. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's Disease is well established, and that requires implanting a stimulating electrode in the brain. This technique would require the additional step of viral mediated gene transfection, but would probably be less damaging to the tissue than electrical stimulation. Similarly, I could imagine this being used for drug-resistant epilepsy as an alternative to surgical removal of the focus. There might also be application

Loads of stupid, moronic posts about this, as if it's all a 'bit of a laugh', right?

Do you know what the word 'pain' means? Have you ever experienced it?

Couldn't your sociopathic minds even begin to wonder what those monkeys went through? Why no video footage of this pointless 'research'? Wouldn't that be hugely beneficial for other scientists? Oh wait - we can't have the public seeing what these nutcases do to animals, can we.

God help your children (if any of you wankers manage to ever have any) - imagine

You bring up a very interesting point here--one that was conspicuously absent from the article and other comments.

Could the reason for this perspective be that articles about animal experimentation are written by and for people who have already largely decided that the benefits of animal experimentation outweigh the drawbacks? Is applying labels to your audience such as "stupid", "moronic", "sociopathic" and "nutcases" the most effective way to engage them in a constructive debate that will eventually res